“Voter ID laws are for the protection of legitimate voters…not to punish the unqualified.”
– Rep. Craig Frank, Utah Lawmaker, PHC Founding Member, former Chair of the Utah House Government Operations Standing Committee (w/elections oversight), and member of the (Utah) Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Utah’s Democracy.
As of September 2011, thirty states have voter ID laws where picture or non-picture identification is required to cast a ballot. The requirement to provide ID before casting a ballot is a logical part of any redundant system for individual voter verification and positive recognition. Positively verifying voters protects elections officials from charges of fraud and mishandling of elections materials.
STATES ACCUSED OF ILLEGAL ELECTION ACTIVITY
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), recently called Florida out for engaging in “illegal” election activity. Florida officials responded by saying that periodically purging voter rolls is an ongoing project, and is necessary to stay in compliance with federal and state law. It’s clearly an individual state mandate to provide valid, uncontaminated voter rolls. Noticeably, the federal government has concerns about the states’ oversight of election process so close to an enormously momentous election.
From CNN’s online political reporters…
Florida’s proposed elimination of non-U.S. citizens from its voter rolls is necessary to preventing voter fraud, a spokesman for the state’s Division of Elections said Friday after the U.S. Department of Justice called into question the legality of the action.
“The Department of State has a duty under both state and federal laws to ensure that Florida’s voter registration rolls are current and accurate. Therefore, identifying ineligible voters is something we are always doing,” (Chris) Cate (of the Florida Divison of Elections) wrote. [CNN, Political Unit, June 1, 2012]
U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has ordered Florida to stop purging voter records. According to recent reports, Florida may have as many as “182,000 registered voters who may not be U.S. citizens.”
Really?!
ATTACKS TO THE FLANKS
Large corporate sponsors of major political based organizations are starting to buckle to national political pressures coming from groups like Van Jones’ Color of Change, as C of C and other organized groups plan a concerted attack on states’ rights organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a consortium of state lawmakers and private sector representatives focused on states’ rights and economic issues. Groups like C of C focus their efforts around central government expansion and federalism. Their agendas include attacking states’ autonomy on a number of different levels. Nefarious campaigns such as these used to be carried out in dark smoke-filled rooms…no longer do they waste time to concealing their tactics and connections.
As states’ rights organizations grow stronger, there will be more and more pushback from individuals and factions focusing on federal encroachment into state activities.
WHAT WE ARE DOING…
The Patrick Henry Caucus is passionate about the elections process—local, state, and federal. Voter participation is crucial to the successful outcome of good, wise, and honest elected officials. We encourage ALL eligible citizens of the United States to vote. States should be the ultimate “caretakers” of election rolls and voter systems in each of their jurisdictions.
The PHC has spent years working vigorously on voter verification legislation and proposals. Many of those initial proposals have become state law. The PHC suggests using model legislation available in numerous states as templates for successful options in your state.
WHAT WE NEED YOU TO DO…
Voter ID laws protect citizens against voter fraud. Become familiar with voter protection mechanisms (and laws) by contacting your associated state political party. Find out if your state has voter ID requirements. You probably already know from the last time you went to the polls (except OR and WA that are VBM). If you weren’t required to provide personal ID “at the door,” your ID laws are non-existent or minimal. Found out why. If you had to provide ID before receiving a ballot then your state is one of approximately thirty states with stronger ID laws. Either way, you should be asking yourself “why” your state does it the way it does. Next, contact your state lawmakers and find out what your state can do to strengthen voter verification laws.
Verification of individual voters helps minimize voter fraud.
The Patrick Henry Caucus, and its leadership, wants every eligible citizen to participate at the ballot box. Exercise your franchise—vote!
I will never provide ID at my polling place. Never have and never will. In fact, I think it’s time to check out of this b******t political paradigm since the electoral process does not really further the cause of freedom.
Yes, because there’s no chcane at all that two people of likely Hispanic descent could possibly have the same name in New Mexico.Does anyone remember a few years ago when the state GOP held a nice big news conference to prove that they had 28 names of people who had voted illegally in the preceding election every single one of whom turned out to be a legitimate voter when contacted by the media that same afternoon? I like Secretary Duran, but she should probably stop wasting her time with the NMGOP’s favorite debunked conspiracy theory.
Johnathan Halsey is wrong about the fact that the legal precept of one vote per citizen is a sacred doctrine that defines and governs the representative republic in elections. Voter fraud is an abhorrent criminal offense that devalues the integrity and veracity of elections. Only qualified people should be allowed to participate in the electoral process. A voter-ID requirement is appropriate to verify the voter’s identity through an authentication process established by law. Many states have established voter-ID laws that required the voter to authenticate his/her identity. States with voter-ID laws do facilitate provisional ballots for citizens without the proper ID. Voter registration fraud is perpetrated by third party organizations, such as ACORN, who assist people cast fraudulent or illegitimate votes at the ballot box by fictitious voter registration. Many ACORN employees have been indicted, prosecuted, and were convicted of criminal voter fraud offenses. A biometric or photographic ID requirement should be implemented to verify any person’s identity. A biometric ID system consists of seven-items: fingerprints, hand geometry, palm vein authenticity calibration, retina scan calibration, iris scan calibration, facial recognition, and voice analysis scanner. A photographic-ID consists of a state driver’s license, state-issued personal ID, military-issued ID, government employment ID, post-secondary education institutional ID, or passport. A biometric/photographic ID system would function to verify the identity, eligibility and residence of voter registrants to preclude non-citizens and illegal aliens from voting in elections. Biometric and photographic ID could be processed at a DMV Office or an Election Bureau Office. Proof of citizenship should be requested to preclude the registration of non-citizens who are never eligible to vote: legal and illegal aliens. The sufficient proof-of-citizenship documentation should conform to passport & employment application standards. Every first-time voter registrant should submit satisfactory evidence of citizenship by submitting the appropriate documentation substantiating his/her United States Citizenship for conforming to that minimal requirement. HB 2067 is the model legislation prescribed by KS Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach that was approved by KS Governor Samuel D. Brownback’s signature to impose a strict voter-ID law for Kansas that conforms to the ACRU recommendations. The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) is a non-partisan conservative organization, which recommends three prophylactic anti-voter fraud measures for operating authentic electoral regimes: (1) requiring a photo ID to vote in person, (2) requiring proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and (3) requiring signature verification and an acceptable proof of ID when voting absentee by mail. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that voter identification laws do not unduly burden the right to vote and are therefore constitutional. The Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) Supreme Court decision determined that the IN Voter-ID Law (SEA 483) in a 6-3 vote that the citizens’ right to vote is not unduly burdened by a minimum requirement to furnish a valid federal or state government-issued photographic identification credential, which is a non-discriminatory voting qualification or prerequisite to voting that verifies every voter’s identity to regulate how the state operates the electoral regime within the provisions and limits prescribed by the Federal Constitution. The South Carolina and Texas Voter-ID Laws were denied consent by the Justice Department pursuant to Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act for implementation on the premise that racial discrimination would be the retrogressive effect incurred by Afro-American and Hispanic voters who are less likely to possess a government-issued photographic identification, which is prescribed by the law as a voting qualification or prerequisite to voting than Anglo-Caucasian voters. South Carolina and Texas sued the DOJ to approve the new Voter-ID Laws for implementation. Georgia was granted consent by the Justice Department in 2005 pursuant to Section 5 of the VRA to implement a Voter-ID Law. The constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being challenged in Shelby County versus Holder, which is pending for adjudication by the Supreme Court of the United States. Shelby County claims that the Tenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth Amendments and Article IV of the Federal Constitution were breached by the Federal Congress exceeding the enumerated powers of Article I of the Federal Constitution by renewing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 2006.